Prev: The participants in these newsgroups are arithmetic morons
Next: Nostradamus' Science Prophecy has Come
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 2 Aug 2010 18:49
On Aug 2, 9:19 am, david.bostw...(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David
>
> Actually, all crackpots sound pretty much alike.
-----------------------------------------

You forgot the end of your sentence: to the unsophisticated.

From: Saimhain Moose on 2 Aug 2010 19:55
On Aug 2, 6:49 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
wrote:
> On Aug 2, 9:19 am, david.bostw...(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David
>
> > Actually, all crackpots sound pretty much alike.
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> You forgot the end of your sentence: to the unsophisticated.

It is true that highly sophisticated people become more able
to distinguish among crackpots, but most don't choose to
acheive that level of sophistication.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Aug 2010 00:16
On Aug 2, 7:55 pm, Saimhain Moose <samhainmo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> It is true that highly sophisticated people become more able
> to distinguish among crackpots, but most don't choose to
> acheive that level of sophistication.
---------------------------------------------

One can separate the crackpot ideas from the bona fide discoveries by
the criteria of science:

(1) Is the idea consistent with empirical knowledge? Conflict with
theoretical constructs is fine, but the new idea should not radically
conflict with well-tested observations.

(2) Can the new idea make one or more definitive predictions, which
are prior, quantitative, non-adjustable, feasible and unique? This is
how the idea proves its merits. Most crackpot ideas do not lead to
definitive predictions that meet these 5 criteria.

From: David Bostwick on 3 Aug 2010 09:56
In article <0f3e022a-e144-4865-b6e2-586c72088c7c(a)v15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu> wrote:
>On Aug 2, 7:55=A0pm, Saimhain Moose <samhainmo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It is true that highly sophisticated people become more able
>> to distinguish among crackpots, but most don't choose to
>> acheive that level of sophistication.
>---------------------------------------------
>
>One can separate the crackpot ideas from the bona fide discoveries by
>the criteria of science:
>
>(1) Is the idea consistent with empirical knowledge? Conflict with
>theoretical constructs is fine, but the new idea should not radically
>conflict with well-tested observations.
>
>(2) Can the new idea make one or more definitive predictions, which
>are prior, quantitative, non-adjustable, feasible and unique? This is
>how the idea proves its merits. Most crackpot ideas do not lead to
>definitive predictions that meet these 5 criteria.
>

There are a couple more criteria.

Does the person presenting the great new idea claim that his/her discovery is
being ignored because of some conspiracy?

Does the discoverer of the great new idea engage in ad hominem attacks on
those who disagree with him? This works both ways, however.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Aug 2010 12:25
On Aug 3, 9:56 am, david.bostw...(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David
Bostwick) wrote:
>
> There are a couple more criteria.
>
> Does the person presenting the great new idea claim that his/her discovery is
> being ignored because of some conspiracy?
>
> Does the discoverer of the great new idea engage in ad hominem attacks on
> those who disagree with him?  This works both ways, however.
---------------------------------------------------

It has become popular lately, probably due to John Baez's "crackpot
index", to use the psychology and behavior of the discoverer to decide
whether a discovery is scientifically useful or is pseudoscientific
trash.

These clues can be used to assign reasonable probabilities, but
elementary logic should convince any thoughtful person that this
method cannot signify or rule out anything, at least not
scientifically.

Proof:

(1) Was Galileo a "crackpot" for claiming that the Church had a full-
fledged conspiracy working against his scientific approach to
epistemology.

(2) Was Newton a "crackpot" for his alchemy, his biblical
hermeneutics, and his ad hominem attacks on Leibniz over the calculus
dispute.

Some of the most creative people in the history of science were
decidedly "odd" characters, with what might be considered
psychological shortcomings.

In my opinion, it is the postmodern pseudoscientists, who cannot
distinguish between their Ptolemaic and Platonic glass-bead games,
like string theory, the multiverse landscape, SUSY, unobservable
dimensions, unobservable particles, mythical particles, etc., and the
real physical world of nature, who are the leading Crackpot Clowns of
our times.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: The participants in these newsgroups are arithmetic morons
Next: Nostradamus' Science Prophecy has Come